DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Election/Restriction
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-7, in the reply filed on January 21, 2026 is acknowledged.
Claim 8 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Specification
The specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors (grammatical, typographical, and idiomatic). Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which Applicant may become aware in the specification, in the claims and in any further amendments that Applicant may file.
Applicant is also requested to complete the status of the copending applications referred to in the specification by their Attorney Docket Number or Application Serial Number, if any.
The status of the parent application(s) and/or any other application(s) cross-referenced to this application, if any, should be updated in a timely manner.
Claim Objections
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 2 is a different embodiment of the method for preparing a water gas shift catalyst, as it discloses the method “wherein the alumina support is impregnated simultaneously with a potassium salt and a zinc salt” in lines 1-2, which is not disclosed in claim 1. Claim 2 should be rewritten in independent form.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 and 3-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Bittencourt (US 2022/0111377 A1).
The applied reference has a common applicant, assignee, and joint inventor with the instant application. Based upon the earlier effectively filed date of the reference, it constitutes prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2).
With regard to Claim 1, Bittencourt teaches a method for preparing a water gas shift catalyst at high temperature (Abstract).
Bittencourt teaches the method comprising impregnating an alumina support with a polar solvent solution and a soluble potassium salt, drying the support to remove the solvent and calcinating the support at temperatures between 400°C and 800°C to obtain an alumina promoted with potassium, impregnating the potassium-promoted alumina with a polar solution containing a soluble zinc salt, and drying and calcinating the material at a temperature between 300°C and 500°C (Claim 1; Paragraphs 0027-0029).
Bittencourt teaches the catalyst having a specific area greater than 60 m2/g, a potassium content in the range of 4 to 15% m/m and a content of oxide zinc between 10 to 30% m/m and a Zn/Al ratio less than 0.4 mol/mol based on the weight of the oxidized catalyst (Claim 7; Table 1, Examples 10 and 11).
With regard to Claim 3, Bittencourt teaches the method wherein the calcination of step (d) occurs at a temperature between 350°C and 450°C (Paragraph 0028, calcining at temperatures between 300° C. to 500° C., preferably 450° C).
With regard to Claim 4, Bittencourt teaches the method wherein the alumina is selected from boehmite, gamma, theta-alumina or lanthanum-promoted alumina (Claim 2, the alumina is selected from boehmite, gamma, theta-alumina or alumina promoted with lanthanum).
With regard to Claims 5 and 6, Bittencourt teaches the method wherein the potassium salt is selected from hydroxide, nitrate or carbonate, and wherein the zinc salt is nitrate or carbonate (Claim 3, the potassium salt is selected from hydroxide, nitrate or carbonate, the zinc salt is nitrate or carbonate).
With regard to Claim 7, Bittencourt teaches the method wherein the polar solvent is water (Claim 1, Impregnating an alumina support with an aqueous solution of a potassium salt).
These rejections under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) might be overcome by: (1) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(a) that the subject matter disclosed in the reference was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor of this application and is thus not prior art in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(A); (2) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(b) of a prior public disclosure under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(B) if the same invention is not being claimed; or (3) a statement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) establishing that, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the subject matter disclosed in the reference and the claimed invention were either owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person or subject to a joint research agreement.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Bittencourt (US 2022/0111377 A1).
With regard to Claim 2, Bittencourt teaches the method wherein the alumina support is impregnated simultaneously with a potassium salt and a zinc salt in solution of a polar solvent, followed by drying and calcinating at temperatures between 400°C to 800 °C (Claim 4; wherein the alumina support is simultaneously impregnated with potassium salt, zinc salt, copper salt and nickel salt in a polar aqueous solution, followed by drying at temperatures between 80° C. to 120° C., and calcination at temperatures between 300° C.; to 500° C).
As set forth in MPEP 2144.05.I, in the case where the claimed range "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art", a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Claims 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Schiødt (US 7998897 B2), as evidenced by de Kroon et al. (“Direct Synthesis of Binary K-β- and K-β"-Alumina. 1. Phase Relations and Influence of Precursor Chemistry”).
With regard to Claim 1, Schiødt teaches a method for preparing a water gas shift catalyst at high temperature (Abstract).
Schiødt teaches the method comprising impregnating an alumina support with a polar solvent solution and a soluble potassium salt, drying the support to remove the solvent and calcinating the support at temperatures between 400°C and 800°C to obtain an alumina promoted with potassium (Example 1, 254.5 g of a solution of KAlO2 containing excess KOH… was diluted with deionized water to a total volume of 600 cm3). While Schiødt does not explicitly teach the steps of preparing the alumina promoted with potassium, paragraph 0026 of the instant specification discloses that “commercial potassium aluminates may be used, provided they have a specific surface area greater than 15 m2/g, preferably greater than 40 m2/g”. Further, de Kroon teaches the formation of potassium aluminate (Page 882, Table 3; Page 880, 5.1. Powder Preparation; Powder mixtures… were prepared by attrition milling various kinds of alumina raw materials, their chemical and physical characteristics are listed in Table 1, together with potassium hydroxide… in doubly distilled and demineralized (DDD) water).
Schiødt teaches impregnating the potassium-promoted alumina with a polar solution containing a soluble zinc salt, and drying and calcinating the material at a temperature between 300°C and 500°C (Example 1, A solution of zinc nitrate hexahydrate was prepared by dissolving 208.3 g of Zn(NO3)2 *6H2O in deionized water… 254.5 g of a solution of KAlO2 containing excess KOH… was diluted with deionized water to a total volume of 600 cm3. The two solutions were mixed together causing a precipitate to form… The dried intermediate was calcined at 500° C. for two hours).
Schiødt is silent to the catalyst having a specific area greater than 60 m2/g, a potassium content in the range of 4 to 15% m/m and a content of oxide zinc between 10 to 30% m/m and a Zn/Al ratio less than 0.4 mol/mol based on the weight of the oxidized catalyst, instead teaching different contents of potassium, zinc, and Zn/Al ratio (Example 1, Elemental analysis was done by the ICP method and showed the catalyst to contain 38.6% Zn, 22.9% Al and 1.76% K. The molar Zn/Al ratio was thus 0.70; Table 1).
However, Schiødt teaches the method of preparing the catalyst as disclosed above. The amounts of starting materials used in the instant specification disclosed (Example 10, Fifteen grams of the support thus obtained were impregnated… with 9.3 ml of aqueous solution containing 6.09 grams of zinc nitrate) are different from the amounts disclosed in Schiødt (Example 1, A solution of zinc nitrate hexahydrate was prepared by dissolving 208.3 g of Zn(NO3)2 *6H2O in deionized water… 254.5 g of a solution of KAlO2 containing excess KOH… was diluted with deionized water to a total volume of 600 cm3).
It would have been obvious to optimize the metal amounts of K, Zn, and alumina that can effectively achieve the desired catalyst material as disclosed, as specific area, metal content, and Zn/Al ratio are result-effective variables. See MPEP 2144.05.II.B.
Further, evidence of unexpected properties may be in the form of a direct or indirect comparison of the claimed invention with the closest prior art which is commensurate in scope with the claims. See In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
With regard to Claim 2, Schiødt teaches the method wherein the alumina support is impregnated simultaneously with a potassium salt and a zinc salt in solution of a polar solvent, followed by drying and calcinating at temperatures between 400°C to 800 °C (Examples; Catalyst preparation. The catalysts of the present invention may be prepared in a number of ways including coprecipitation of salts of zinc and aluminum with a base such as ammonia, alkali metal hydroxides and alkali metal carbonates and bicarbonates… Another alternative preparation method consists of co-precipitation of salts of zinc and aluminum by hydrolysis of urea. The promoters are conveniently impregnated onto the catalyst as solutions of appropriate alkali metal compounds; Page 6, lines 2-4, Catalyst preparation is in any case concluded by calcination at a temperature in the range 200-800° C., preferably in the range 450-650° C).
With regard to Claim 3, Schiødt teaches the method wherein the calcination of step (d) occurs at a temperature between 350°C and 450°C (Page 6, lines 2-4, Catalyst preparation is in any case concluded by calcination at a temperature in the range 200-800° C., preferably in the range 450-650° C).
As set forth in MPEP 2144.05.I, in the case where the claimed range "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art", a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
With regard to Claim 4, Schiødt teaches the method wherein the alumina is selected from boehmite, gamma, theta-alumina or lanthanum-promoted alumina (Example 1, 254.5 g of a solution of KAlO2 containing excess KOH… was diluted with deionized water to a total volume of 600 cm3). While Schiødt does not explicitly teach the type of alumina used, paragraph 0026 of the instant specification discloses that “commercial potassium aluminates may be used, provided they have a specific surface area greater than 15 m2/g, preferably greater than 40 m2/g”. De Kroon teaches the formation of potassium aluminate, wherein the alumina is selected from boehmite, gamma, theta-alumina or lanthanum-promoted alumina (Page 882, Table 3; Page 880, 5.1. Powder Preparation; Powder mixtures… were prepared by attrition milling various kinds of alumina raw materials, their chemical and physical characteristics are listed in Table 1, together with potassium hydroxide… in doubly distilled and demineralized (DDD) water).
With regard to Claims 5 and 6, Schiødt teaches the method wherein the potassium salt is selected from hydroxide, nitrate or carbonate, and wherein the zinc salt is nitrate or carbonate (Example 1, A solution of zinc nitrate hexahydrate was prepared by dissolving 208.3 g of Zn(NO3)2 *6H2O in deionized water… 254.5 g of a solution of KAlO2 containing excess KOH… was diluted with deionized water to a total volume of 600 cm3. The two solutions were mixed together causing a precipitate to form… The dried intermediate was calcined at 500° C. for two hours; Example 2, This catalyst was prepared… as in Example 1 but in the presence of potassium carbonate).
With regard to Claim 7, Schiødt teaches the method wherein the polar solvent is water (Example 1, A solution of zinc nitrate hexahydrate was prepared by dissolving 208.3 g of Zn(NO3)2 *6H2O in deionized water… 254.5 g of a solution of KAlO2 containing excess KOH… was diluted with deionized water to a total volume of 600 cm3. The two solutions were mixed together causing a precipitate to form).
Citations
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Schiødt (US 8404156 B2) teaches a catalyst containing oxides of zinc and aluminum with one or more promoters.
Lamberov (RU 2350594 C1) teaches a method for making a dehydrogenation catalyst through impregnating an alumina carrier with oxides and promoters.
Tavasoli et al. (“Sugarcane bagasse supercritical water gasification in presence of potassium promoted copper nano-catalysts supported on γ-Al2O3”) teaches a copper based catalyst impregnated on γ-Al2O3 for use in supercritical water gasification.
Conclusion
Claims 1-8 are pending. Claim 8 is withdrawn. Claims 1-7 are rejected. No claims are allowed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ABDUL-RAHMAN YUSUF WALEED SMARI whose telephone number is (571)270-7302. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7:30-5, F 7:30-4.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Anthony Zimmer can be reached at 571-270-3591. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ABDUL-RAHMAN YUSUF WALEED SMARI/Examiner, Art Unit 1736 March 5, 2026
/Cam N. Nguyen/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1736 March 05, 2026